I'm pretty sure I saw some ChatGPT ads on Duolingo. Also, never forget that the regular dude do not use ad blockers. The tech community often doesn't realize how polluted the Internet/Mobile apps are.
"Wasting resources on making even smaller special purpose web browsers integrate with the engine is not a move for a company that has been struggling with a lack of independent funding for years now."
So says the narrative. Mozilla has money, but prefer using it for C-Level salaries : Mitchell Baker raised her salary from 2.5M$ to 7M$ within 4 years, all the while laying-off developers and spending a shitload of money on seminaries and others BS expenses. Meanwhile, the market share of Firefox dropped.
And I assume you have noticed that privacy is not their main concern.
Such a pity because Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox brought a lot to the Web. But I guess this happens when Corporate people take over any organisation.
>raised her salary from 2.5M$ to 7M$ within 4 years, all the while laying-off developers and spending a shitload of money on seminaries and others BS expenses.
Seminaries? Kagi turns up nothing. Could you explain?
One of the best games I played back in the day. However, I'm not "hyped" by this news. I'm way too afraid Ubisoft will favor nice gfx instead of a polished gameplay.
I hope to be wrong, and I'll probably give it a chance, but I definitely have no expectations regarding the games.
Actually, every newspaper has some bias regarding the information they publish, and it's unavoidable.
The most honest ones acknowledge that, contrarily to "Le Monde" and all the others main french newspapers ("Le Figaro", "Libération") claim.
Regarding Mediapart, it is indeed strongly opinionated newspaper, but you know that beforehand.
They have significant issues, but I'll never say it's not quality journalism (part of it actually). I've been a subscriber for years because of the quality of their investigations. For the record, none of these are pursued by big newspapers in France anymore: "Le Monde" and all major newspaper just relay the general information/propaganda, with no strong analysis. When they talk about scandals, they are never at their origin, and mostly relay the work done by others.
And when you know that most of them are owned by billionaires who have their own agenda, and that a significant chunk of their money (several millions per year) comes from the French state, you understand why.
You cannot be independent if your owners are billionaires, and if your income don't exclusively come from people who are paying for you to be independent (ie. subscribers). Everyone that argue against that is a liar. And you have in France 2 newspapers matching this criteria : Mediapart, and of course "Le Canard Enchainé".
The main issue I had with Mediapart (which led to cancel my subscription) was indeed the fact that on some subjects (mostly the "woke' things), they twist the facts to match their agenda. Some would say it's another view on the same facts but my opinion was that sometimes, they tried to make allegations on something not strong enough.
Regarding the other subjects, I had nothing but praise for them.
> The main issue I had with Mediapart (which led to cancel my subscription) was indeed the fact that on some subjects (mostly the "woke' things), they twist the facts to match their agenda.
> Regarding the other subjects, I had nothing but praise for them.
It’s weird how you noticed they are twisting facts to match their agenda on a specific topic, and somehow still think they’re not doing the same elsewhere.
This is an oversimplification of things, but I'll gladly explain.
First, behind the term "newspaper", you have journalists. Not all of them are equal. Some are professionals, some have connections, and some are not good enough. Like every human. Yo also hae some journalist that specialize in some areas, when you better have solid arguments to avoid a lawsuit when publishing (and usually, only part of it is published to be able to react). I know the ones that I consider to be good. To drop a few names, Kevin Arfi, Laurent Mauduit, Martine Orange, etc. I mean, their career and their work speak for themselves, their papers are detailed, well structured, they provide facts and proofs, etc.
Then, sometimes, facts speak for themselves. You have so many evidences on a scandal that there is no point arguing. You may object that some other facts are deliberately hidden, but more often than not, the accused people never answer on the substance, always on the form. It speaks volume. I mean, Mediapart is not a young newspaper anymore, and they have their track record.
Also, in any case, you're free to form your own opinion based on the facts provided. I have sometimes - as I said on the "woke things" a different interpretation of the facts that the journalist. But to be able to do that, you still need the facts, and they are provided. I "just" read the things differently.
I take everything I read with a grain of salt, whether I like or not the newspaper, whether I pay for it or not.
But let's go. Tell me some cases when Mediapart was wrong ? It should not be difficult for an "unreliable" source. Oh and tell me also what are your reliable sources, especially on the subject of investigations. I'm curious. Because apart from the "Canard enchainé", I don't find any.
Because it will always be easier to discredit a newspaper like Mediapart, than to provide alternatives and fact. And if you want me to give some examples when scandals published in Mediapart proved to be true, I have many.
I obviously do not know the context, but as a manager, you have to be extremely cautious with the estimates provided to you by your team.
First because human are notoriously bad at estimating the workload, and then because you never know what can happen in the meantime : it can be literally everything : a bug in the frameworks you use, someone who get ill, an hardware or network failure, etc.
When you have the luxury to set the deadline, you always choose a safe one, that will guarantee you to be on track or ahead the schedule. As much as you can, never late.
And yes, you also have to be careful before communicating to the client an estimate. he may then think that each of his request takes "one hour", and, as he now know "how to estimate", he would make you waste your time negotiating something that he perceive to be easy to do while it's not.
Honestly, despite the fact that I do not think highly of Accenture, nothing shocking here regarding the management.
Of course the fact that he charged for a full week of work is just a scam.
I worked at a company that used CapGemini. They were given the task of moving data from one drive to another.
Took them a week. When they had finished, they had forgotten/didn’t know that the parent folder needed to make child folders inherit permissions (Windows file server being used). They couldn’t figure out what the cause of the problem was, despite being told. In the end an employee ticked the correct box and propagated permissions.
These guys can’t move files from one drive to another. In a week.
I checked their website to see what their technology looks like. I wanted to see how their product compare to a eInk screen use in many devices (such as Kindle/Kobo/ReMarkable), as this is the kind of products that interests me. It turns out that all the pictures shows the back of what I expect to be tablets/phone prototypes (or maybe it's just stock photos), and not a single time the screen.
It's almost comical : you advertise for a screen tech, but you carefully avoid to show how such screen looks like. Definitely a red flag.
> It's almost comical : you advertise for a screen tech, but you carefully avoid to show how such screen looks like. Definitely a red flag.
Are you an E Ink employee or something trying to badmouth clearink? Because you can just go to youtube and search clearink and find clear videos of their products from various conferences.
I'm not related to any of those company in any way. I do not work in this field, and to be quite honest, before your comment, I did not even know about ClearLink.
I've highlighted something that makes no sense. Do you expect a car manufacturer not showing one of its cars on its website ? Apple not to how its iPhone ? A SaaS company not showing screen captures of its product ? I don't.
Those images should be easily available without having to browse YouTube, or do a search on google.
FWIW, I would actually welcome any concurrent to eInk and its monopoly. I totally share the point of view of the top comment, as I've seen this tech stagnate for years.
Most of the supposed alternatives 10 years ago(PlasticLogic, Liquavista, Mirasol, etc.) either never produced something relevant, either failed the expectations.
I actually find your comment quite disrespectful: if you want to promote a product, you can do that without having to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Anyway, thanks for the YouTube tip: I was able to see what I wanted to see.
Edit: if some employee of ClearInk see this message, do yourself a favor and update your website with some pictures of your product, or even a embedded Youtube video. It will speak more than stock photos.
I would understand it to mean that for every 100 people in the placebo arm who were diagnosed with COVID, only 10 people in the treatment arm were diagnosed with COVID.
Also note that being "diagnosed with COVID" (and COVID was explicitly used in the press release: "more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participant") is not the same as "not catching the virus at all (and being unable to transmit it to the more vulnerable -- note: at least 25% of people in the most developed countries, and even more in the U.S, can be considered "vulnerable" -- it's not "just the very old.").
So as it is written, it merely means that the from the vaccinated persons ("study enrolled 43,538 participant") in the distribution of the observed 94 "cases" diagnosed with COVID-19 it is seen that 90% of them are among the control group (among those who received placebo).
Note that the illness (as in "having symptoms") is called "COVID-19" and the test to the mere presence of the virus would have been formulated like "SARS-CoV-2 was not detected" and that's not what is written in the press release.
